W&M vs. uVA for someone who wants to go for a humanities PhD after undergrad?

[Anonymous]

W&M you will get a much better education. They still teach students how to think not what to think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the OP -- your child will not be able to get a tenure-track academic job with a humanities Ph.D. Whether or not they get funded to do the Ph.D., there is an opportunity cost for the years spent doing the degree that they could have been working. They are setting themselves up for financial hardship.

This is very likely to be true. Ask me how I know.

Maybe the student should chose a school based on their Plan B! Or their Plan B and their Plan C.

My DD took a gender studies class last semester & her prof (tenured) complained to their section about not being able to afford a house near the school

It's not just because she's in gender studies. But yeah don't do it!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I recently came across a former colleague from a respected humanities PhD program who is working at a grocery store. It's a large, nice grocery store, and a management position, but still.

They’re making more than they would as a tenured professor in the humanities.

DP. Really? I make north of $200k.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:W&M you will get a much better education. They still teach students how to think not what to think.

And you believe this is different from UVA? What you wrote is a basic tenet of a liberal arts education. You will find that almost good schools.

Either school will be fine for the OPs needs. My DD is finishing up her second year and has a philosophy minor. I’ve been very impressed with the discussions she’s had first in her class but then with me and others. It’s been great for her even impacted how she lives her life in a positive way. The humanities profs at UVA in our exp have been amazing.

[Anonymous]

UVA has gone woke. W&M not yet but give Rowe a few more years and it will be just as bad as UVA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:UVA has gone woke. W&M not yet but give Rowe a few more years and it will be just as bad as UVA.

Learn to talk without using buzzwords

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:UVA has gone woke. W&M not yet but give Rowe a few more years and it will be just as bad as UVA.

I disagree and I’m there. The tour guides will give some woke buzz but there’s still a place for everyone on campus at uva.

[Anonymous]

UVA is hardly “woke”. My DD is finishing up a class this semester with a famous conservative sociology professor. She has enjoyed hearing all sorts of perspectives, which is what college should be about. Learning to think and make your own judgements not just follow what others tell you.

[Anonymous]

Either is good for the easier majors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Either is good for the easier majors.

Based on your answer, you appear to be suggesting they are not good for "harder" majors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:UVA is hardly “woke”. My DD is finishing up a class this semester with a famous conservative sociology professor. She has enjoyed hearing all sorts of perspectives, which is what college should be about. Learning to think and make your own judgements not just follow what others tell you.

Woke is a loaded term that few can even define. The real question is whether free speech and differing points of views tolerated. Both are actually good in a relative sense on this site assessing and ranking free speech on campus, with W&M 12 and UVA 24.

https://rankings.thefire.org/rank

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:UVA is hardly “woke”. My DD is finishing up a class this semester with a famous conservative sociology professor. She has enjoyed hearing all sorts of perspectives, which is what college should be about. Learning to think and make your own judgements not just follow what others tell you.

Oooo! Ian Mullins? Tell her to also take Ken Elzinga in Econ. He was a wonderful mentor to my kid. Also James Ceasar and Gerard Alexander.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lol at the you need a degree beyond the Bachelor to get into a top law school. You don’t.

Of the 559 members of the Harvard Law class of 2025, only 51 had an advanced degree. That’s right, folks - 508 of them didn’t.

In all likelihood, the majority of the 51 Harvard law school students in the entering class of 2025 had advanced degrees because they got their degrees and then decided to go to law school; they didn’t get them to boost their law school applications.

Information such as this is readily available to the public. Why not do your research before spouting off nonsense?

https://hls.harvard.edu/jdadmissions/apply-to-harvard-law-school/jdapplicants/hls-profile-and-facts/

But 80 percent took off more than one year.

So while they may not have been getting an advanced degree, they were doing something else with "oomph - "like the culinary arts master mentioned. Or something equally amazing, like the Olypians in my class.

And five or six of the Justices do have MPhils from Oxford or Cambridge and Gorsuch has a DPhil.

So every bit can help when it comes to a top law school admission (Gorsuch did his DPhil on a Marshall after his JD from Harvard).

When I went to Harvard Law, my class was riddled with Rhodes Scholars, Marshalls, Fulbrights,, and advanced degrees from London School of Econ. Even then, most students took time off. The Harvard undergrads that didn't get in straight from the undergraduate college often went overseas to Germany, France and England to study and then apply again. I went the paralegal route to make money to pay for it.

Does this apply to all law schools? of course not. But unhooked kids can no longer get into a T14 just on GPA and LSAT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Either school is fine for soft disciplines.

I wouldn't call it "soft" because that is disparaging, but, yes, both schools are great at getting their students into advanced degree programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous[b wrote:]W&M you will get a much better education. They still teach students how to think not what to think.

[/b]


What a bizarre comment. Care to substantiate?